Re: [Leica] M and R Future

[Simon Stevens <simon@wizard.net>]

Simon Stevens wrote:
><Snip>
> Unfortunatly this criticism includes most of the R models and
especially
> the R8. If I wanted to carry a camera that huge, I'd just use my
> Hasselblad. Leicas are meant to be small, that's the whole reason
Oskar
> invented them in the first place!
>
> Simon Stevens
I think it's easy to underestimate the feel of the R8. I think it
quickly (like
the Hasselblad) doesn't feel too big. But you need to take it out and
shoot a
few rolls with it to know for sure. I think it's a worthy design for a
machine
that makes 24 by 36 mm images. But on the long run I'm not sure if the
world
will ever think so. It's just not a casual camera.
Mark Rabiner

Hi Mark,

I'm not sure that I need to spend $2000, whoops! Sorry, I mean $1500,
oops! Sorry again, I mean $1200 for a camera to confirm my initial
handling impressions. I know already that I don't like it.

Anyway, to recap: The comment I was responding to was that there is a
market out there for anachronistic cameras among the young, not just
among those who were young when they were cutting edge. I agreed and
gave my personal reasons as a (then) teenager for choosing an old
fasioned camera, a rangefinder, rather than one of the autofocus SLR's
that most of my peers would probably have chosen.

My cameras are tools to me. I make my living with them, and because I do
my work on location I have to lug the things around, so I appreciate not
having unneccesary weight and bulk. One of the things I like about my
Hasselblad  is that the body is about as small as a 6x6 camera
reasonably can be - the body fits snugly around the negative with just
enough room to squeeze in a drive train and viewfinder.  The same can be
said about the Leica M's but cannot be said about most 35mm SLR's on the
market, and the R8 is certainly no exception. Notice that I have said
nothing about absolute size. I am talking about  size relative to the
negative.

From my very subjective point of view, that camera, and the mass market
brands it seems to be emulating  remind me of the design philosophy that
Microsoft seems to use (no flames, please!). Take a simple concept (in
this case, a miniature camera, as 35mm used to be called) add as many
features as possible, even if they aren't needed and even if the product
becomes unwieldy and crashes frequently. Sound familiar?

Tell me, how often do real photographers use Program? And if they do,
would they admit to it?

From my minimalist perspective the classic Leica is the M rangefinder
(excluding the also oversized and unloved M5). They are thoroughly
professional, simple, small and as precision made as a Swiss watch. To
be a worthy compliment to them, a really Leica-like SLR should also be
as small is it reasonably can be. I'm thinking something about the size
of the Olympus OM-1, but with Leica precision, superb lenses and better
ergonomics. I'm sure that such a camera would be a niche product, but
then, what else can we call Leica anyway?

Simon Stevens